Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Drury, 520 P.2d 495.

38 citing documents.

Nextgear v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Nextgear v. Owens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, –53 (1974) (recognizing ex parte divorce decree).
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
But in Arizona this “privilege applies only to confidential communications,” which cannot occur in a police interview room.
Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
Phoenix City Prosecutor v. Hon. lowery/claudette Craig 430 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
As such, they must be strictly construed.” (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); (stating that the marital communications privilege poses “an obstacle to the pursuit of truth” and “it should be limited rather than expanded”); Indus.
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
under Arizona law gives a criminal defendant, except in enumerated types of cases, an absolute right to prevent his or her *522 spouse from being called as a witness.”); , (holding that the anti-marital fact privilege “operates to absolutely disqualify a spouse as a witness for or against the other without his or her consent”).
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
State v. Harrod 26 P.3d 492 Ariz. 2001
Oyakawa v. Gillett 854 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Oyakawa v. Gillett 854 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Article IV, section 1 of the United States Constitution requires that “ ‘not some, but full’ faith and credit be given judgments of a state court.” , (quoting Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 294 , 63 S.Ct.
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
State v. Carrillo 750 P.2d 883 Ariz. 1988
In doing so, we acknowledge the low intelligence of the accused, , the arguably coercive environment of the police interrogation room, Cruz-Mata, 138 Ariz. at 373 , 674 P.2d at 1371 ; the clear focus of the investigation on the defendant, Perea, 142 Ariz. at 355 , 690 P.2d at 74 ; the fingerprinting and police transportation to the station, State v. R
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
Schilz v. SUPER. CT. IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 695 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1985
Lofts, supra, 140 Ariz. at 410 , 682 P.2d at 415 ; , 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, § 933 (1969).
State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
State v. Hall 633 P.2d 398 Ariz. 1981
State v. Tothill 586 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Tothill 586 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
State v. Morales 587 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1978
§ 13-132; , , , State v. Ramirez, 116 Ariz. *525 259, R. Gerber & F. Foreman, Arizona’s Criminal Law: The Critical Need for Comprehensive Revision, 18 Ariz.L.Rev.
State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
State v. Steelman 585 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
State v. Ramirez 569 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1977
State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
State v. Whitaker 544 P.2d 219 Ariz. 1975
The proscription applies only so long as the parties are married.”
State v. Clark 543 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1975
State v. Clark 543 P.2d 1122 Ariz. 1975
State v. Decello 523 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1974
State v. Decello 523 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miller 522 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1974
State v. Miller 522 P.2d 23 Ariz. 1974
it was held that malice could be inferred from the severity of the beating given the victim and the vast age disparity between the victim and the assailant.
State v. O'DONNAL 521 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1974
State v. O'DONNAL 521 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1974
No. 2719, filed February 22, 1974; , , No. 2599, filed March 25, 1974.